Map to Veto in 1v1 (Help)

the map that i veto are:

La glaive,

semoisky,

minsk pocket,

road to kharkov,

bombarded refinary,

market ruin,

rustung essen..

this is correct?

For what faction?

As Ostheer, you can't veto enough maps that disfavor your faction, so there is little hope.

As OKW, you can deal somewhat more reliable with allied infantry superiority, but still you can't veto enough maps that disfavor your faction, so there is only a little more hope

As USF, you can wreak havoc on all these new urban maps and most close quarters maps. Veto maps that favor more open and long range combat such as langreskya or camping in the woods.

As UKF, you can pretty much do well on most maps. Just be careful to not get rekt by rushed 222 or sniper abuse.

As Soviets, maxim spam works on all maps, so does spamming penals, you're good.

i just veto the map in general but not in specific Faction, but i do like to know what to veto as in specific faction, my knowledge for 1v1 strat still 0%

could u help me??

Sure! Here are my vetoes! I am by no means a good or pro player, but I have been playing the game since launch and know a bad map when I see one.! I veto the following maps!

As Ostheer veto:
1. La gleize outbreak
2. Semoisky winter
3. Bombarded refinery
4. Caen
5. Halbe
6. Rüstungswerke Essen
7. Westwall

*These maps are your nightmare as Ostheer. The rest of the maps aren't great either, but these are the worst! These maps just simply suck vs double bar riflemen, double lmg tommies, penal spam with flamers and maxims for that matter.

As OKW veto:
1. La gleize outbreak
2. Semoisky winter
3. Bombarded refinery
4. Caen
5. Halbe
6. Rüstungswerke Essen
7. Westwall

*Same problems as with Ostheer! Veto these nightmares!

As USF veto:
1. Semoisky (summer)
2. Crossing in the woods

*Some people don't veto Semoisky, but I don't like the map for the fact that mg42 spam can be very effective on this map, there for I veto it. I don't really find the need to veto the rest. USF feels solid on the rest of the maps if you ask me.

As UKF veto:
1. Crossing in the woods

*I don't feel bad about the rest of the maps. If you face OKW, just get one of the important garrisons, since sturmpioneers can make you cry in the early game. The Urban maps are good since Ost sniper play is limited.

As Soviets veto:
1. Crossing in the woods
2. Minsk Pocket (hate it as soviets, love it as Ostheer)

Maxim spam and penal betallion spam works wonders on all maps, excluding crossing in the woods, which is just an Axis favored map to begin with. Minsk pocket just feels lame as Soviets for me, don't know why..

Hope this helps! Good luck!

Helpfull context

its ok tnx ..

owh btw why ostheer veto Semoisky Winter?..whats the different with semoisky summer?

its ok tnx ..

owh btw why ostheer veto Semoisky Winter?..whats the different with semoisky summer?

The lakes are frozen or winter version. So the summer version has many chokepoints that are easy to guard with mgs and paks, while on the winter version you can get flanked more easily.

As for the vetos, I generally keep veto lists for each faction but I try to veto as little as possible, just becouse it shakes thinks up and makes games more interesting. Only if some map pisses me off becouse I loose on it too much I veto it for some time.

After each strategy or faction shift many of these become wrong. Even the list you have for OKW while you switch OKW with OST will be different than the list for OKW when you switch with USF. It's like that becouse OST has completely different playstyle than USF.

And btw, I tend to play minimum of two factions at the time, playing only one couses a tunnel vision and you strart to play worse and worse with every match. At least it works like that for me.

The lakes are frozen or winter version. So the summer version has many chokepoints that are easy to guard with mgs and paks, while on the winter version you can get flanked more easily.

As for the vetos, I generally keep veto lists for each faction but I try to veto as little as possible, just becouse it shakes thinks up and makes games more interesting. Only if some map pisses me off becouse I loose on it too much I veto it for some time.

After each strategy or faction shift many of these become wrong. Even the list you have for OKW while you switch OKW with OST will be different than the list for OKW when you switch with USF. It's like that becouse OST has completely different playstyle than USF.

And btw, I tend to play minimum of two factions at the time, playing only one couses a tunnel vision and you strart to play worse and worse with every match. At least it works like that for me.

hmm alright, i try to play something that weak at, (ost and UKF)

btw if semoisky summer can control the choke point with MG, isnt that Maxim Spam advantage?

hmm alright, i try to play something that weak at, (ost and UKF)

btw if semoisky summer can control the choke point with MG, isnt that Maxim Spam advantage?

It is, but like cloth already mentioned, you can't veto all allied-favoured maps and out of the two of them, summer version seems more managable. Winter is as bad as summer in case of maxims as ost doesnt benefit so much from flanking routes.

It is, but like cloth already mentioned, you can't veto all allied-favoured maps and out of the two of them, summer version seems more managable. Winter is as bad as summer in case of maxims as ost doesnt benefit so much from flanking routes.

hmm ok tnx.. i'll do my best

hmm ok tnx.. i'll do my best

And have fun! Doing your best is nice, but this game doesn´t reward that. Just have fun.

I think, at least in higher level of play, you should use all your vetoes if there is at least one map that favors your faction, so you get better chance to get it thust increasing your chances to win.

It´s not about being lame, or abuser when you veto maps. You aren´t. It´s completely valid strategy in order to minimase your chances to lose a match. Imagine playing against balanced oponent, when you fight as ostheer on langren and then doing the same on market garden or la glieze. Everyone can see, you are in much better position playing on langres.

Also your enemy if he is clever, will veto maps that favor you as well, so if you don´t "abuse" veto system and he will, then you will fight on his terms, he will dictate map and strategy and thust will win the match.


Here is my veto system for all 5 factions on all maps. Keep in mind that some maps I simply hate (like Halbe), so your veto list can vary from my. Vetoing every map you don´t like becuase you will feel much better when you play on map you like than on one you don´t.



Soviets:
Halbe - too open for soviets
Crossing - too open
Langres - too open
Kharkhov - inbalanced starting positions, too campy in middle
Essen - too open in some parts and block light vehicle pathing on other
Crossroads - langre 2.0
Westwall - too open in middle

Ostheer:
La gleize - urban close range map
market ruins- urban close range map
refinery -urban close range map
semosky winter- too open for flanking routes, yet too urban as well
minks- too many flanking routes
Essen - fuel is in close range part of map ...
bryansk forest - too many flanking routes

USA
langres - too open
halbe- too open
crossroads- too open
crossing in woods- too open
kharkov- too open
faymoville- houses are ruled by hmgs easily
westwall- mid portion of map is ruled by hmgs and paks

OKW
La gleize - urban close range map
market ruins- urban close range map
refinery -urban close range map
semosky winter- too open for flanking routes, yet too urban as well
Essen - fuel is in close range part of map ...
Arnhem - maxims in house center are no go
lost glider- too many housing for maxims


UKF
La gleize - urban close range map
market ruins- urban close range map
refinery -urban close range map
semosky winter- too open for flanking routes, yet too urban as well
Caen- too big map and too many flanking routes
Essen - fuel is in close range part of map ...
bryansk forest - too many flanking routes

And have fun! Doing your best is nice, but this game doesn´t reward that. Just have fun.

alright i try to have fun..

I think, at least in higher level of play, you should use all your vetoes if there is at least one map that favors your faction, so you get better chance to get it thust increasing your chances to win.

It´s not about being lame, or abuser when you veto maps. You aren´t. It´s completely valid strategy in order to minimase your chances to lose a match. Imagine playing against balanced oponent, when you fight as ostheer on langren and then doing the same on market garden or la glieze. Everyone can see, you are in much better position playing on langres.

Also your enemy if he is clever, will veto maps that favor you as well, so if you don´t "abuse" veto system and he will, then you will fight on his terms, he will dictate map and strategy and thust will win the match.


Here is my veto system for all 5 factions on all maps. Keep in mind that some maps I simply hate (like Halbe), so your veto list can vary from my. Vetoing every map you don´t like becuase you will feel much better when you play on map you like than on one you don´t.



Soviets:
Halbe - too open for soviets
Crossing - too open
Langres - too open
Kharkhov - inbalanced starting positions, too campy in middle
Essen - too open in some parts and block light vehicle pathing on other
Crossroads - langre 2.0
Westwall - too open in middle

Ostheer:
La gleize - urban close range map
market ruins- urban close range map
refinery -urban close range map
semosky winter- too open for flanking routes, yet too urban as well
minks- too many flanking routes
Essen - fuel is in close range part of map ...
bryansk forest - too many flanking routes

USA
langres - too open
halbe- too open
crossroads- too open
crossing in woods- too open
kharkov- too open
faymoville- houses are ruled by hmgs easily
westwall- mid portion of map is ruled by hmgs and paks

OKW
La gleize - urban close range map
market ruins- urban close range map
refinery -urban close range map
semosky winter- too open for flanking routes, yet too urban as well
Essen - fuel is in close range part of map ...
Arnhem - maxims in house center are no go
lost glider- too many housing for maxims


UKF
La gleize - urban close range map
market ruins- urban close range map
refinery -urban close range map
semosky winter- too open for flanking routes, yet too urban as well
Caen- too big map and too many flanking routes
Essen - fuel is in close range part of map ...
bryansk forest - too many flanking routes

tnx u for the tips hector

i might post a replay for my gameplay hope ya all can help me..

tnx u for the tips hector

i might post a replay for my gameplay hope ya all can help me..

Sure I (or someone among us, strategists) will do.

Call me returd but why?

Why Veto? I understand in some way, that if you've just played 7 times in a row a certain map, you'd like to veto it to get some change.

But why? Personally i dislike "arena" maps, which are mirror images from both sides (for example achelous river).

No map is TOTALLY unfair, like all fuel is on other players side. Of course, some buildings are easier to reach, some windows point to one direction but not the other... But how to adapt to the situation is what counts.

Do players REALLY veto maps just for the fear of having a little disadvantage? Anyways, how the battle turns out, and how you command and play anyways decides the winner of the match.

Yet, i think the right to veto is a great option to avoid a disliked map whatever the reason.

Cheers.

Call me returd but why?

Why Veto? I understand in some way, that if you've just played 7 times in a row a certain map, you'd like to veto it to get some change.

But why? Personally i dislike "arena" maps, which are mirror images from both sides (for example achelous river).

No map is TOTALLY unfair, like all fuel is on other players side. Of course, some buildings are easier to reach, some windows point to one direction but not the other... But how to adapt to the situation is what counts.

Do players REALLY veto maps just for the fear of having a little disadvantage? Anyways, how the battle turns out, and how you command and play anyways decides the winner of the match.

Yet, i think the right to veto is a great option to avoid a disliked map whatever the reason.

Cheers.

They do, becouse some factions are better on long range and the other on short range. Then, the more possible long range engagement the more the map supports one faction. This can be an important laverage if you are "trying hard" to get the best rank you can. If you just play for fun though, your view on vetos is much more healthy.

Call me returd but why?

Why Veto? I understand in some way, that if you've just played 7 times in a row a certain map, you'd like to veto it to get some change.

But why? Personally i dislike "arena" maps, which are mirror images from both sides (for example achelous river).

No map is TOTALLY unfair, like all fuel is on other players side. Of course, some buildings are easier to reach, some windows point to one direction but not the other... But how to adapt to the situation is what counts.

Do players REALLY veto maps just for the fear of having a little disadvantage? Anyways, how the battle turns out, and how you command and play anyways decides the winner of the match.

Yet, i think the right to veto is a great option to avoid a disliked map whatever the reason.

Cheers.

You're a returd

I veto maps that are just awful to play on. I love Langress, Road to Karkhov and faymonville they are just incredibly well balanced, and on the opposite side.. well...:

I have no words for how much I hate Angoville, I'm sick to death of playing on kholodny ferma, its such a crappy map and there are.. TWO VERSIONS OF IT THAT ALTER NOTHING, Trics maps and the majority of ones that came with that bundle suck what makes a good map out in favour for looks.

The pattern for me seems to be small maps over bigger maps for 1v1, Crossroads and lost glider are great too, the latter is about as big as I will go ()for 1v1, nothing worse than retreating a squad from the front line and being able to boil a cuppa, drink it and still be waiting for them to return.

Call me returd but why?

Why Veto? I understand in some way, that if you've just played 7 times in a row a certain map, you'd like to veto it to get some change.

But why? Personally i dislike "arena" maps, which are mirror images from both sides (for example achelous river).

No map is TOTALLY unfair, like all fuel is on other players side. Of course, some buildings are easier to reach, some windows point to one direction but not the other... But how to adapt to the situation is what counts.

Do players REALLY veto maps just for the fear of having a little disadvantage? Anyways, how the battle turns out, and how you command and play anyways decides the winner of the match.

Yet, i think the right to veto is a great option to avoid a disliked map whatever the reason.

Cheers.

Axis and UKF are good at long range open maps - heavy tanks, long range infantry, support weapons.

Soviets and USA are good at choke points maps with lot of flanking options and buildings to outflank, ambush and defeat infantry at close range.

Its not about having small disatvantage like one house or something. It actually big disatvantage for allied player when map is too open - langres, crossroads, so he cannot close in in order to defeat enemy and also axis player will have problem on CQC urban maps (refinery,la gleize, market ruins, ...)because there is no room for him to stay at long range, meaning his superior team weapons will be weakened. This is main reason why you want to veto certain maps

Its not about having small disatvantage like one house or something. It actually big disatvantage for allied player when map is too open - langres, crossroads, so he cannot close in in order to defeat enemy and also axis player will have problem on CQC urban maps (refinery,la gleize, market ruins, ...)because there is no room for him to stay at long range, meaning his superior team weapons will be weakened. This is main reason why you want to veto certain maps

...if you're looking to play to the fullest and win.
There's always a workaround. True, axis troops could perform better on open maps, but they get STG-44s and flamers and MP-40s and brummbärs and FlameHTs and mines and...

It's not so black and white that one SHOULD veto maps because of disadvantage. It's just that normal guides and meta don't work optimally.

Actually playing "wrong" maps, and overcoming the hardships of non-optimal surroundings, adapting to the enviroment and circumstances... This teaches us best on how to play, right?

Main reason to veto should be just plain dislike of the map. If the reason to not like a map is because it's harder to win, then it's all fine

...if you're looking to play to the fullest and win.
There's always a workaround. True, axis troops could perform better on open maps, but they get STG-44s and flamers and MP-40s and brummbärs and FlameHTs and mines and...

It's not so black and white that one SHOULD veto maps because of disadvantage. It's just that normal guides and meta don't work optimally.

Actually playing "wrong" maps, and overcoming the hardships of non-optimal surroundings, adapting to the enviroment and circumstances... This teaches us best on how to play, right?

Main reason to veto should be just plain dislike of the map. If the reason to not like a map is because it's harder to win, then it's all fine

It will only give you headache because allied infantry is superior to STG pgrens right now in any aspect in range lower than mid-long range.

If you don´t believe me find equal opponent on your own fight 1 match USA vs OST on langres and then do the same on la gleize. Results will be different. You can always outcome odds by playing better but its shame when you lose to almost equal oponent only because you´ve got bad map